Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2020

The AIH Transcript for December 21, 2020

Hosts: Helen Mann and Samira Mohyeddin

Prologue

HELEN MANN: Hello. I'm Helen Mann, sitting in for Carol Off.

SAMIRA MOHYEDDIN: Good evening. I'm Samira Mohyeddin, sitting in for Chris Howden. This is

SM: And pie-er beware. The Trump administration takes aim at desert — moving to quash regulations that ensure frozen cherry pies contain lots of cherries.

SM: “As It Happens”, the Monday edition. Radio that calls that a wedge issue.

Part one: COVID mutations explainer, Ontario lockdown, Great Conjunction

COVID mutations explainer

Guest: Fatima Tokhmafshan

SM: Canada joined the countries suspending travel from the U.K. today, following reports about a new strain of the coronavirus there. The variant has about twenty mutations and may be more transmissible than the Covid-19 we're used to. It's the kind of headline we dread. And it has certainly generated a lot of dreadful headlines. But scientists also say there is no reason to believe that vaccines will be less effective. And today, the European Union joined Canada and others in approving the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Fatima Tokhmafshan is a geneticist and bioethicist at the Research Institute of McGill University. We reached her in Montreal.

HM: Ms. Tokhmafshan, it's not as though this is the first time this coronavirus has mutated over the past year. But why is this particular variant, in your mind, getting so much attention?

FATIMA TOKHMAFSHAN: I would say the scientific community are paying attention because there are a few unique things about this variant. For starters, it has accumulated a few mutations in the famous spike protein, which is very important for the virus to bind to human cells. And also, it's a target for vaccines and therapeutics. And, of course, the public and the policymakers are interested in paying more attention because it could have implications on the vaccines and as well as the pathology.

HM: British health officials are saying that this mutation appears to make the virus much more transmissible. Is there concrete evidence to that?

FT: Well, they've put forward a few details. For instance, they've looked at how prominent it has been when they have sequenced the genome in regions where they have had recent increases in the number of cases. And if you do a ratio, you see a whole bunch of people with this particular variant come up as opposed to other variants. So things like that, it's not concrete proof, but it's enough for the authorities and the scientific community to want to pay close attention.

HM: You mentioned vaccines, the spike protein, we, those of us who are amateurs reading all this stuff, know that that's what is the key to the vaccines that are currently being approved anyway working. So for those people who might have been doom-scrolling and are fearful, do the kind of mutations we're seeing here potentially put the current vaccines at risk?

FT: We really don't think so. For the vaccines to become completely ineffective, we need major changes to happen to various components of the spike protein. So the currently approved mNRA vaccines provide ourselves with instructions on how to build different sections of the spike protein. And I want to emphasize that the spike protein is not one unit. It has many different components, and many vaccines target the different components of the spike protein. So mRNA gives your cells instruction to build sections of one component of the spike protein. After your cells are tricked into building this incomplete protein, they realize, hey, this doesn't belong to us. So what happens is that the immune cells come in, they start breaking this foreign partial protein into fragments, which is then picked up by another group of immune cells that remember what those fragments look like. And, therefore, are able to destroy it the next time they see it. The key to this amazing process is that immunity is generated against many fragments. And so if we are exposed to a mutant strain, our immune cells have developed memory to so many different sections of the viral spike component that if a few regions are different, we’ll still be able to elicit immune response.

HM: We've seen these travel bans, temporary travel restrictions, on people from the UK up to about 72 hours. While we're told scientists are trying to get a better handle on all of this, is that enough time to kind of figure out what's going on here?

FT: It's hard to say, unfortunately, they might have to be extended. What the UK authorities are doing currently, they're going back, they’re trying to go back to their contact tracing data, look at the phenotypes, the symptoms of the people who have had this variant and either have ended up at a hospital or not. And basically, gather more information that way. So I don't know if they might need a bit more time?

HM: I read that as more people are exposed to the virus and develop either natural immunity or are vaccinated against it, that the virus is kind of almost in a race to get ahead and mutate. Does this put more pressure on us to speed up the vaccination process?

FT: Yes. Well, what you're referring to as what we call a sort of antigenic drift, it's basically the process where we have developed enough immunity to that common variant of the virus that it withers away and dies. And then the other variants, they basically become prominent. So absolutely, it's a race against time for us and for the virus.

HM: So should we prepare ourselves for news of more mutations to come?

FT: Yes, 100 per cent, absolutely. And, again, the mutations have been happening since day one. And that's why from day one almost, a lot of scientists from all around the world have been sequencing and collecting information about the evolution of the virus. The second important point to remember is that the effect of the mutation also depends on environmental and selective pressures on the organism. So mutations are going to happen all the time. At some point, they might become a little more dangerous to us than we would like it to be.

HM: So over the course of this pandemic, we've seen whenever there is uncertainty, new information coming out, there are people who will take advantage of this — either misinformation or, more deliberately, disinformation. What should people keep in mind as they learn more, as we all hear more about these mutations in the coming weeks and months?

FT: Absolutely, Helen. Misinformation has been the bane of the [chuckling] scientific community's existence. I would say, first of all, there are many, many scientists, many experts that have made themselves available to the community. The other point I would bring up is the fact that this mutation or other mutation really don't change the rules of the game as much. The rules of the game are: you stop transmission. And if we stick to that, to that game plan, regardless of what changes, we are good.

HM: Ms. Tokhmafshan, thank you very much for helping us understand this a bit better. I appreciate it.

FT: My pleasure.

HM: OK, bye-bye.

FT: Bye.

CH: Fatima Tokhmafshan is a geneticist and bioethicist at the Research Institute of McGill University. She's also part of COVID-19 Resources Canada research and development hub. She spoke to us from Montreal.

[Music: Vocalization]

Ontario lockdown

Guest: Bianca Garofalo

SM: Ontario is getting a lockdown for Christmas.

DOUG FORD: we need a runway for the vaccine to roll out. That's why after consulting with the chief medical officer of health, listening to hospital CEOs and other health experts and extensive discussions at the cabinet table and caucus throughout the weekend, I'm announcing today that Ontario will enter a province-wide shutdown starting at 12:01 a.m. on December 26th. This difficult action is without a doubt necessary to save lives and prevent our hospitals from being overwhelmed in the coming weeks. Make no mistake, thousands of lives are at stake right now. If we fail to take action now, the consequences could be catastrophic.

SM: That was Ontario Premier Doug Ford, saying out loud what was predicted — that all of Ontario is heading into lockdown on December 26th. The province has been averaging more than 2,000 new cases a day, and hospitals are warning that without strict measures, they will be overwhelmed. In southern Ontario, including Toronto, today's announcement doesn't change much. But for the north, it is reminiscent of those first days of the pandemic. For two weeks, all non-essential businesses will be forced to closed, and restaurants will only be allowed to offer takeout. Bianca Garofalo is the owner of three restaurants in Thunder Bay, in northwestern Ontario. And she's already transitioned two of her restaurants to take out only. We reached her in Thunder Bay

HM: Ms. Garofalo, I know that you had an idea this was coming, but what is it like for you to hear the premier tell you you have to close down your business for two weeks?

BIANCA GAROFALO: Well, I mean, I think that nothing really surprises us at this point in the year. It's unfortunate because I really think that a lot of businesspeople, restaurants especially, which were the hardest hit, were hopeful that the Christmas season would be some recovery, some recovery time for us. And as we sort of, you know, started to work our way through the fall and the numbers were on the rise again. I think it became painfully obvious that we weren't going to have a normal Christmas season. So I'm not surprised. Obviously, I'm disappointed. Not so much in the announcement, but more so that, you know, we're still in this situation, you know, over nine months into it.

HM: Now, you closed down two of your restaurants to only offer take out earlier this month. How did you come to that decision?

BG: Well, I mean, at some point, you know, you're listening to, you know, the advice that is being given by, you know, public health officials, by the premier, by the prime minister. And, you know, if the messaging is that you should limit the amount that you're going out, then really, you should probably just restrict businesses to only go to take out. And then at least we can control our business model and at least we can get ahead of it for our employees as well.

HM: As we're all being told, you know, if we can to get take out, to support local restaurants. But what effect has it had on your business? I mean, how much less money do you make doing takeout than you would if you had your traditional in-restaurant dining?

BG: Yeah, it's a pretty significant difference, to be honest. I mean, we do it because, obviously, it keeps the lights on. And, you know, it pays some of the essential expenses that are going to accumulate, whether you're operating or not. You know, you obviously have insurance to pay and utilities to pay. You know, even if you keep a very minimal amount of staff, you still have to, you know, pay them every two weeks. And there's expenses that happen. So at least doing the take out has brought in some cash flow for us to keep operating at a certain extent. But it's not comparable to the dine-in revenue. So it's not sustainable forever.

HM: How long do you think you can keep going like this?

BG: I don't know. It's hard to say. I mean, we've managed to hang in there. And like, I think that I have, you know, three really strong business models and in my community. And, you know, we've had the support of the community. People tried, you know, to support us with take out. And, you know, we had a few really good months of patio traffic as well. But the reality is that if the government doesn't, you know, announce more support for these businesses, you know, January, February, March, which are usually the slowest months of the year, are going to be very difficult for people to keep going.

HM: Have you had to lay off employees?

BG: Yes, twice now.

HM: How many people are we talking about?

BG: Oh, a very significant amount of the staff. So the first time in March, we probably laid off about 95 to 98 per cent of the staff. And this time we were able to — because we had, you know, a larger take out program established. We were able to keep a few more people, but we probably still laid off about 85 per cent of the staff.

HM: That's a lot of responsibility. How does that weigh on you?

BG: Well, it's really difficult. I mean, especially this last time that we made the decision to proactively close. It was right at the beginning of December. And you're very much aware that you're laying off the staff at Christmas, in the winter. It's a, you know, a vulnerable time of year for a lot of people. So it's really hard because these people are your family, you see them every day and a lot of them, you know, view coming to work as, you know, an outlet for them and seeing their friends and their colleagues is like family, and it's very, very difficult.

HM: You've said you'd like to see more support from the government for your industry going forward. What are you looking for?

BG: Well, I've said from day one that I would have liked to have seen more grants. You know, initially, everybody was offered the loans and, you know, with fairly generous terms of repayment. But the reality is that, you know, most people in the restaurant industry are operating at a very low profit margin. We already usually have a fairly substantial debt load. It's very costly to start a restaurant and to operate a restaurant as well. Snd I just don't think that people are going to be able to keep adding to their debt load. So the 40-thousand dollar loans that were initially offered, I'm sure most people have worked their way through that. It's not difficult to work your way through 40-thousand dollars in nine months with reduced capacity, closures and all of the things that have come along with it. And, you know, now they're offering another 20-thousand dollars to add to the loan. I mean, at the end of the day, everyone is going to start asking themselves, do I want to be 60-thousand dollars more in debt? And that's, you know, that's just part of it. I think everybody has been operating, you know, at a loss. And it's going to take a really long time to pull ourselves out of that.

HM: Well, Ms. Garofalo. I know it's difficult times for so many people. I wish you the very best of luck in the coming weeks and months. And I appreciate you talking with us about this.

BG: Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

HM: All right. Bye-bye.

BG: Bye.

SM: Bianca Garofalo is the owner of three restaurants in Thunder Bay, Ontario. That's where we reached her.

Great Conjunction

Guest: Henry Throop

SM: It's that time of year when the thought of bundling up on the couch under a weighted, heated blanket sounds better than just about anything. At the bottom of the list of things you want to do right now is something along the lines of: standing outside in the cold, as the wintery wind slaps your face, to stare up at the night sky. But tonight is different. And that's because of what's called the "great conjunction" — a meeting between Saturn and Jupiter in our night sky that hasn't been rivalled for centuries. Henry Throop is an astronomer in the Planetary Science Division at NASA in Washington DC. That's where we reached him.

HM: Henry Throop, people might have seen this word conjunction in their social media recently, but what exactly, in this context, is a conjunction?

HENRY THROOP: So the conjunction that's happening between Jupiter and Saturn is when they line up in the sky. So they're going to appear almost right next to each other in the sky, separated by a really small amount, actually, just about a tenth of a degree. So if you extend your pinky out at arm's length, you'll be able to cover Jupiter and Saturn with just your pinky with room to spare.

HM: Now, as I understand it, conjunctions happen relatively often. So what is happening this time that makes it so great?

HT: Exactly. So Jupiter and Saturn are both orbiting in the solar system. Jupiter is actually on the kind of on the inside track, and it's like a runner overtaking the slower outer runner. So Jupiter's overtaking Saturn, just like it does every 20 years. What's unique about this conjunction is how close they're going to appear in the sky. Usually, they're a degree or so apart from each other, so wide separation between them. But in this case, they're going to get appear to get really, really close. Now, in space, they’re still hundreds of millions of kilometres apart from each other. No risk of Jupiter crashing into Saturn. But in the sky, from our perspective, they're going to look like two bright stars right next to each other in the sky just after sunset.

HM: Now, these planets have gradually been approaching this position for the past, well, I guess for some time. They’ve been visible for about a week or so. Why is tonight the big night?

HT: So tonight is when the separation is again going to be the smallest. If you miss it tonight because of weather or anything else, it’s OK, you can see it tomorrow. The separation is going to be a little bit bigger. You can see it in the days after that. And many people have been watching it in the weeks leading up to this Great Conjunction as well.

HM: And you can do this with your naked eye? You don't have to have a telescope?

HT: That's right. You don't need binoculars. You don't need a telescope. If you do have binoculars, you should definitely use them. You'll be able to see, with many binoculars, you should be able to see the moons of Jupiter. Jupiter has four moons orbiting it, which were detected by Galileo back in 1610, which is just before the last time this conjunction was so close in the sky. And if you have a DSLR camera, you should be able to take some nice pictures, which will show Jupiter's moons in the sky, and perhaps Saturn's moon named Titan as well.

HM: You mentioned Galileo. That was the last time this happened. But I gather it wasn't visible to people on Earth the way this one is?

HT: That's right. So we have this conjunction back in 1623, just a couple of years after Galileo was using a telescope to do the first studies of Jupiter and Saturn and really first figure out what they were in our sky. However, that conjunction between them might not have been seen by anybody on Earth. And that's because it happened primarily during the daytime. Jupiter and Saturn were very close to the sun. And so you could have seen them if you were looking for them. But it would have been really, really difficult. So the previous time that they were this close together was in the year 1226, almost 800 years ago.

HM: I keep hearing references to the star of Bethlehem or the Christmas star. Is that what people might have seen around the time of the birth of Jesus?

HT: It's entirely possible that what that refers to is a conjunction between the planets. There was a conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn back around the year six or seven B.C. There are other things in the sky that could have been seen back in that time as well, such as a nova or supernova, which are different kinds of exploding stars, or an alignment between the stars and the planets, or a comet in the sky. So without having observers back then and more detailed records, we don't really know what it could be. But what we do know is that you know, for thousands of years, people have observed the sky and been inspired by it. And the things they see make their way into history, and culture, and religion in thousands of thousands of different cultures across the world for thousands of years. And so it's really exciting to see the deep connection that people had for all this time with the sky from the past, and now continuing on to today.

HM: Yeah, well, in fact, I guess there would be mystic connotations for many cultures over the centuries. If you think back 800 years ago, or even 2000 years ago, what do you imagine people living them looked up and saw happening?

HT: Well, I think people have been watching the planets for a long time. The planets are not... the planets are bright. You can see them easily from any city, whether it's a dark city or whether it's a bright city. And just like people can now, people back then could see the planets, and they could see them moving in the sky and approaching each other. I think they would have been really excited to see this, and I'm really excited to have so many people interested in seeing it from our skies this month as well.

HM: I can hear your enthusiasm. As an astronomer, what does an event like this mean to you?

HT: What it is, is a great reason to go outside. We're not doing scientific observations with this, and that's because in space, Jupiter and Saturn are not coming together. They're not, you know, touching each other, too. Jupiter is not going to crash into Saturn or anything like that. They're still separated by hundreds of millions of kilometres. So what this is, in this case, is this is an opportunity to really connect people with the sky, and see what's in the sky, and see what we are observing as astronomers.

HM: How many evenings have you been sitting outside in the cold?

HT: [chuckling] I've been going out as much as I can. We've had some clouds here in Washington DC and I'm hoping for clear skies soon so I can see this conjunction very close.

HM: For those who might have missed sort of the big moment tonight, this will continue to some degree for the coming days. How long do people have to catch some of this?

HT: Well, what's great is this has been going on for the whole month. Jupiter and Saturn have been getting closer and closer to each other in the sky. And then there's still a week or two that you'll be able to see them as they're getting further and further apart in the sky after this. So if you missed it on the 21st, it's OK. Go out on the 22nd, on the 23rd, it’s still going to be quite a sight.

HM: And is there anyone alive today who might see something like this again in their lifetime?

HT: You know, it's been a couple hundred years since these last conjunctural, and 800 years since the conjunction which was as close and as visible as this one during the night time. But there is another conjunction coming up in 2080, which is going to be similarly close to this. So many people may be able to observe that that conjunction in 2080. After that, I think it's going to be a long time until we have another conjunction like this.

HM: Right. Well, it's fascinating. Thank you so much. I hope a lot of people get out there and the skies are clear enough for them to enjoy it.

HT: Thanks so much. Clear skies to you.

HM: OK, byebye.

SM: Henry Throop is an astronomer in the Planetary Science Division at NASA in Washington DC. That's where we reached him.

[Music: “Cherry Pie” by Warrant”/ hair metal]

Cherry pie pardon

CH: It is a busy time at The White House. So much last-minute hustle and bustle. Tweets to tweet, elections to fight, pals to pardon. It can be hard to find the time for the simple things. Like cherry pie. Or the even simpler things, like frozen cherry pie. Still, the Trump Administration has made the time to give cherry pie its just desserts. Because right now, a frozen cherry pie sold in the United States must adhere to impossibly high standards. Like containing a decent amount of actual fruit! And not containing many rotten cherries! But finally, these Draconian rules may change. Earlier this month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration proudly announced its intention to scrap the regulations that govern that beleaguered dessert. Finally, frozen American cherry pies will be free to have more crust, less fruit, and cherries of whatever quality the manufacturer wants. Because, apparently, the administration believes the government has its fingers in too many pies. Ultimately, despite this outgoing administration's claims of triumph, the future of frozen cherry pies will be up to the incoming administration. And not to sound crusty -- or flaky -- but this would allow mass-market pie makers a bigger piece of the pie. And give consumers the freedom to...not know for sure what they are buying. Making this whole thing as American as...frozen cherry pie.

Part two: Reading: The Necklace

FOA: Leo Panitch obit

SM: Leo Panitch once told the Globe and Mail that, quote, "the point of being a Marxist today [is ] to recover the spirit of the revolution." Unquote. The York University professor made it his life's work to foster that spirit. Long before Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made socialism cool again, Professor Panitch was urging the left to replace social democracy with what he called a democratic socialism rooted in workers' rights. On Saturday, Leo Panitch died, after contracting Covid-19. He was 75. In 1982, Leo Panitch took a call from “As It Happens.” Pierre Trudeau's government had passed legislation to force west coast dock workers to settle a contract dispute with the port's owners. Host Elizabeth Gray asked Professor Panitch for his take.

LEO PANITCH: Going back to 1970, we've seen an enormous increase in government coercion, both at the federal and provincial level against what has taken to be an essential element of democracy: the right to strike. The era of free collective bargaining is over in Canada.

ELIZABETH GRAY: You don't link this to any political party?

LP: No, I think it's something that goes well beyond the liberals. It goes well beyond that as it relates to, one, the crisis of capitalism, the crisis of the economy, which is an international problem. And once the economic growth of the great boom period of the post-war era ended, the great social justice claims made beginning in the post-war period have been increasingly retrenched.

EG: It obviously works politically.

LP: They're quite in a terrible bind. In order to make this particular system go, they've got to essentially bribe capital to invest. And sometimes that takes the form of regressive taxation. Sometimes it takes the forms of grants and subsidies and giveaways to business. But increasingly, it takes the form of removing democratic rights.

EG: Well, the federal NDP hasn't shared that ideology, except --

LP: No. Although, I don't think it's fought it very strongly either. I think it's been afraid of taking it on.

EG: Is that party in a real jam now, do you think, given the way it's responding to this ports legislation, it won't support it, but it won't block it?

LP: They're saving their necks vis-a-vis the unions by not supporting it, but by not coming out against it, not making the parallels, for instance, with the Polish situation, they are hardly doing much to turn the attitudes of people around.

EG: Don't you think that is to exaggerate the situation a little, to make a direct comparison with Poland?

LP: I don't think so. It's usually thought that what characterizes our societies as a democracy is the fact that the non-property people acquired the right to vote over the last century, and that's one of the aspects of democracy. But the other has been the struggle and the winning by the same people of the right to strike. It’s highly significant that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't contain the right to strike.

SM: Leo Panitch speaking with “As It Happens” host Elizabeth Gray in 1982. The socialist teacher, academic and public intellectual died, of COVID-19, on Saturday. He was 75.

[Music: Folk]

Reading: The Neclace

SM: Today is the Winter Solstice, which means it's the shortest day and longest night of the year. And after months of the sun setting so early you'd like to nestle into bed by suppertime, it can only get brighter from here. But for Mathild Loisel, her darkest night was way back in 1884. And for the key player in Guy de Maupassant's classic tale, the nights didn't get any brighter. It all started with the must-attend event of the season, and a diamond necklace. First published in 1884, here is "The Necklace", read by the late, great "As It Happens" host, Alan Maitland.

When she sat down to dinner at a round table covered with a three-day-old cloth opposite her husband who, lifting the lid off the soup, shouted excitedly, "Ah! Beef stew! What could be better," she dreamed of fine dinners, of shining silverware, of tapestries which peopled the walls with figures from another time and strange birds in fairy forests; she dreamed of delicious dishes served on wonderful plates, of whispered gallantries listened to with an inscrutable smile as one ate the pink flesh of a trout or the wings of asparagus chicken.

She had no dresses, no jewels, nothing; and these were the only things she loved. She felt she was made for them alone. She wanted so much to charm, to be envied, to be desired and sought after.

She had a rich friend, a former schoolmate at the convent, whom she no longer wanted to visit because she suffered so much when she came home. For whole days afterwards she would weep with sorrow, regret, despair and misery.

One evening her husband came home with an air of triumph, holding a large envelope in his hand.

"Look," he said, "here's something for you."

She tore open the paper and drew out a card, on which was printed the words:

"The Minister of Education and Mme. Georges Rampouneau request the pleasure of M. and Mme. Loisel's company at the Ministry, on the evening of Monday January 18th."

Instead of being delighted, as her husband had hoped, she threw the invitation on the table resentfully, and muttered:

"What do you want me to do with that?"

"But, my dear, I thought you would be pleased. You never go out, and it will be such a lovely occasion! I had awful trouble getting it. Every one wants to go; it is very exclusive, and they're not giving many invitations to clerks. The whole ministry will be there."

She stared at him angrily, and said, impatiently:

"And what do you expect me to wear if I go?"

He hadn't thought of that. He stammered:

"Why, the dress you go to the theatre in. It seems very nice to me ..."

He stopped, stunned, distressed to see his wife crying. Two large tears ran slowly from the corners of her eyes towards the corners of her mouth. He stuttered: "What's the matter? What's the matter?"

With great effort she overcame her grief and replied in a calm voice, as she wiped her wet cheeks:

"Nothing. Only I have no dress and so I can't go to this party. Give your invitation to a friend whose wife has better clothes than I do."

He was distraught, but tried again:

"Let's see, Mathilde. How much would a suitable dress cost, one which you could use again on other occasions, something very simple?"

She thought for a moment, computing the cost, and also wondering what amount she could ask for without an immediate refusal and an alarmed exclamation from the thrifty clerk.

At last she answered hesitantly:

"I don't know exactly, but I think I could do it with four hundred francs."

He turned a little pale, because he had been saving that exact amount to buy a gun and treat himself to a hunting trip the following summer, in the country near Nanterre, with a few friends who went lark-shooting there on Sundays.

However, he said: "Very well, I can give you four hundred francs. But try and get a really beautiful dress."

The day of the party drew near, and Madame Loisel seemed sad, restless, anxious. Her dress was ready, however. One evening her husband said to her:

"What's the matter? You've been acting strange these last three days."

She replied: "I'm upset that I have no jewels, not a single stone to wear. I will look cheap. I would almost rather not go to the party."

"You could wear flowers, " he said, "They are very fashionable at this time of year. For ten francs you could get two or three magnificent roses."

She was not convinced.

"No; there is nothing more humiliating than looking poor in the middle of a lot of rich women."

"How stupid you are!" her husband cried. "Go and see your friend Madame Forestier and ask her to lend you some jewels. You know her well enough for that."

She uttered a cry of joy.

"Of course. I had not thought of that."

The next day she went to her friend's house and told her of her distress.

Madame Forestier went to her mirrored wardrobe, took out a large box, brought it back, opened it, and said to Madame Loisel: "Choose, my dear."

First she saw some bracelets, then a pearl necklace, then a gold Venetian cross set with precious stones, of exquisite craftsmanship. She tried on the jewelry in the mirror, hesitated, could not bear to part with them, to give them back. She kept asking:

"You have nothing else?"

"Why, yes. But I don't know what you like."

Suddenly she discovered, in a black satin box, a superb diamond necklace, and her heart began to beat with uncontrolled desire. Her hands trembled as she took it. She fastened it around her neck, over her high-necked dress, and stood lost in ecstasy as she looked at herself.

Then she asked anxiously, hesitating:

"Would you lend me this, just this?"

"Why, yes, of course."

The day of the party arrived. Madame Loisel was a success. She was prettier than all the other women, elegant, gracious, smiling, and full of joy. All the men stared at her, asked her name, tried to be introduced. All the cabinet officials wanted to waltz with her. The minister noticed her. She danced wildly, with passion, drunk on pleasure, forgetting everything in the triumph of her beauty, in the glory of her success, in a sort of cloud of happiness, made up of all this respect, all this admiration, all these awakened desires, of that sense of triumph that is so sweet to a woman's heart.

She left at about four o'clock in the morning. Her husband had been dozing since midnight in a little deserted anteroom with three other gentlemen whose wives were having a good time.

He threw over her shoulders the clothes he had brought for her to go outside in, the modest clothes of an ordinary life, whose poverty contrasted sharply with the elegance of the ball dress. She felt this and wanted to run away, so she wouldn't be noticed by the other women who were wrapping themselves in expensive furs.

Loisel held her back.

"Wait a moment, you'll catch a cold outside. I'll go and find a cab."

But she would not listen to him, and ran down the stairs. When they were finally in the street, they could not find a cab, and began to look for one, shouting at the cabmen they saw passing in the distance.

They walked down toward the Seine in despair, shivering with cold. At last they found on the quay one of those old night cabs that one sees in Paris only after dark, as if they were ashamed to show their shabbiness during the day.

They were dropped off at their door in the Rue des Martyrs, and sadly walked up the steps to their apartment. It was all over, for her. And he was remembering that he had to be back at his office at ten o'clock.

In front of the mirror, she took off the clothes around her shoulders, taking a final look at herself in all her glory. But suddenly she uttered a cry. She no longer had the necklace round her neck!

"What is the matter?" asked her husband, already half undressed.

She turned towards him, panic-stricken.

"I have ... I have ... I no longer have Madame Forestier's necklace."

He stood up, distraught.

"What! ... how! ... That's impossible!"

They looked in the folds of her dress, in the folds of her cloak, in her pockets, everywhere. But they could not find it.

"Are you sure you still had it on when you left the ball?" he asked.

"Yes. I touched it in the hall at the Ministry."

"But if you had lost it in the street we would have heard it fall. It must be in the cab."

"Yes. That's probably it. Did you take his number?"

"No. And you, didn't you notice it?"

"No."

They stared at each other, stunned. At last Loisel put his clothes on again.

"I'm going back," he said, "over the whole route we walked, see if I can find it."

He left. She remained in her ball dress all evening, without the strength to go to bed, sitting on a chair, with no fire, her mind blank.

Her husband returned at about seven o'clock. He had found nothing.

He went to the police, to the newspapers to offer a reward, to the cab companies, everywhere the tiniest glimmer of hope led him.

She waited all day, in the same state of blank despair from before this frightful disaster. Loisel returned in the evening, a hollow, pale figure; he had found nothing.

"You must write to your friend," he said, "tell her you have broken the clasp of her necklace and that you are having it mended. It will give us time to look some more."

At the end of one week they had lost all hope.

And Loisel, who had aged five years, declared:

"We must consider how to replace the jewel."

The next day they took the box which had held it, and went to the jeweler whose name they found inside. He consulted his books.

"It was not I, madame, who sold the necklace; I must simply have supplied the case."

And so they went from jeweler to jeweler, looking for an necklace like the other one, consulting their memories, both sick with grief and anguish.

In a shop at the Palais Royal, they found a string of diamonds which seemed to be exactly what they were looking for. It was worth forty thousand francs. They could have it for thirty-six thousand.

So they begged the jeweler not to sell it for three days. And they made an arrangement that he would take it back for thirty-four thousand francs if the other necklace was found before the end of February.

Loisel had eighteen thousand francs which his father had left him. He would borrow the rest.

And he did borrow, asking for a thousand francs from one man, five hundred from another, five louis here, three louis there. He gave notes, made ruinous agreements, dealt with usurers, with every type of money-lender. He compromised the rest of his life, risked signing notes without knowing if he could ever honor them, and, terrified by the anguish still to come, by the black misery about to fall on him, by the prospect of every physical privation and every moral torture he was about to suffer, he went to get the new necklace, and laid down on the jeweler's counter thirty-six thousand francs.

When Madame Loisel took the necklace back, Madame Forestier said coldly:

"You should have returned it sooner, I might have needed it."

To the relief of her friend, she did not open the case. If she had detected the substitution, what would she have thought? What would she have said? Would she have taken her friend for a thief?

From then on, Madame Loisel knew the horrible life of the very poor. But she played her part heroically. The dreadful debt must be paid. She would pay it. They dismissed their maid; they changed their lodgings; they rented a garret under the roof.

She came to know the drudgery of housework, the odious labors of the kitchen. She washed the dishes, staining her rosy nails on greasy pots and the bottoms of pans. She washed the dirty linen, the shirts and the dishcloths, which she hung to dry on a line; she carried the garbage down to the street every morning, and carried up the water, stopping at each landing to catch her breath. And, dressed like a commoner, she went to the fruiterer's, the grocer's, the butcher's, her basket on her arm, bargaining, insulted, fighting over every miserable sou.

Each month they had to pay some notes, renew others, get more time.

Her husband worked every evening, doing accounts for a tradesman, and often, late into the night, he sat copying a manuscript at five sous a page.

And this life lasted ten years.

At the end of ten years they had paid off everything, everything, at usurer's rates and with the accumulations of compound interest.

Madame Loisel looked old now. She had become strong, hard and rough like all women of impoverished households. With hair half combed, with skirts awry, and reddened hands, she talked loudly as she washed the floor with great swishes of water. But sometimes, when her husband was at the office, she sat down near the window and thought of that evening at the ball so long ago, when she had been so beautiful and so admired.

What would have happened if she had not lost that necklace? Who knows, who knows? How strange life is, how fickle! How little is needed for one to be ruined or saved!

One Sunday, as she was walking in the Champs Élysées to refresh herself after the week's work, suddenly she saw a woman walking with a child. It was Madame Forestier, still young, still beautiful, still charming.

Madame Loisel felt emotional. Should she speak to her? Yes, of course. And now that she had paid, she would tell her all. Why not?

She went up to her.

"Good morning, Jeanne."

The other, astonished to be addressed so familiarly by this common woman, did not recognize her. She stammered:

"But - madame - I don't know. You must have made a mistake."

"No, I am Mathilde Loisel."

Her friend uttered a cry.

"Oh! ... my poor Mathilde, how you've changed! ..."

"Yes, I have had some hard times since I last saw you, and many miseries ... and all because of you!"

"Me? How can that be?"

"You remember that diamond necklace that you lent me to wear to the Ministry party?"

"Yes. Well?"

"Well, I lost it."

"What do you mean? You brought it back."

"I brought you back another exactly like it. And it has taken us ten years to pay for it. It wasn't easy for us, we had very little. But at last it is over, and I am very glad."

Madame Forestier was stunned.

"You say that you bought a diamond necklace to replace mine?"

"Yes; you didn't notice then? They were very similar."

And she smiled with proud and innocent pleasure.

Madame Forestier, deeply moved, took both her hands.

"Oh, my poor Mathilde! Mine was an imitation! It was worth five hundred francs at most!"

SM: "The Necklace," read by late "As It Happens" host Al Maitland. It was written in 1884 by Guy de Maupassant. You can find it on our webpage, at: www.cbc.ca/aih. And we'll have more holiday readings in the days to come.

December 17, 2020 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode